HOW WORKING FOR FOSSIL FUEL CLIENTS BLOCKS CLIMATE ACTION

The advertising and public relations industry is facing its biggest corporate social responsibility challenge since the war over tobacco advertising.

A growing movement of industry professionals and regulators are asking hard questions about the role of agencies in supporting the biggest climate polluters on the planet.

Research by
Comms Declare and Clean Creatives:

 
CommsDec_Rnd_rev.png
 
 

Communities of professionals rejecting highly polluting work are growing across the creative industries.

The PR company Edelman recently released a report finding that 60% of employees would leave a company that is doing 'fundamentally immoral' work. A growing percentage of millennial, Gen Z, and other younger workers view the fossil fuel industry in precisely those terms

Clean Creatives, a co-author of this report, has convened hundreds of individual creatives and dozens of agencies to reject future contracts with fossil fuel companies. Another co-author, CommsDeclare, focused on Australia, is building a similar community with ever-growing scale and impact. 

Projects such as Purpose Disruptors are engaging agency heads about their climate strategies, and communities like Climate Designers and Creatives for Climate are bringing individuals together to build design, marketing and PR solutions for climate-focused companies and initiatives. 

Regulators and governments are also focusing on the polluted relationships between fossil fuel companies and the agencies they hire to spin for them. 

The city of Amsterdam has banned fossil fuel ads outright, and France has passed a national ban. Seattle has banned ads on public transportation. Additionally, social media platforms are under growing pressure to address paid disinformation in the form of fossil fuel advertisements as well. 

Legal risks are growing as well. Washington D.C., New York City, the US States of Minnesota, Vermont, and Massachusetts have all filed legal actions addressing disinformation by oil companies about climate change.

BP lost a legal case in the UK filed by the organization ClientEarth addressing their false claims about their commitment to climate action, and similar action was filed in the US against Chevron by Global Witness and Earthjustice. Shell has been ordered by multiple Dutch courts to stop campaigns that contain greenwashing claims.

Each of these cases bring agencies that work with fossil fuel corporations closer to legal scrutiny, and the public eye.

THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY IS THE WORLD’S NUMBER ONE PRODUCER OF CARBON POLLUTION - AND GREENWASHING.

The International Energy Agency finds the energy sector responsible for roughly three quarters of global emissions. US Climate Secretary John Kerry recently pronounced that the need for new fossil fuel development has ended, a claim that has been echoed by widely-respected authorities such as the IEA.

As recently as 2019, major oil companies spent over 99% of their capital expenditures on further development of oil and gas projects. This business reality contrasts with the green-tinted picture painted by agencies for fossil fuel companies in their engagement with the public.

Both Shell and BP have been rebuked by regulators in the Netherlands and UK, respectively, demanding that they end campaigns that mislead the public about their actual commitments to renewable energy and a responsible climate future. Shell has even gone so far as to disclose to investors that “as of February 11, 2021, Shell’s operating plans and budgets do not reflect Shell’s Net-Zero Emissions target,” even while widely advertising that target to the public and regulators. 

 
Oil-&-Gas-Industry-Capital-Investment.png

The F-List 2021: 90 Ad and PR Companies Working for the Fossil Fuel Industry

The list below documents relationships between public relations and advertising agencies, and their clients in the fossil fuel industry, with a focus on three major regions: North America, Europe, and Australia.

Fossil fuel industry clients include the full range of corporations involved in the business of extracting, transporting, refining, and selling fossil fuels, their trade associations, and front groups representing their interests.

These relationships have been documented through a number of sources, including industry publications, public disclosures by agencies or their contractors, and verified reporting, and are collected here to paint a global picture of this kind of work. 

CURRENT AND RECENT FOSSIL FUEL CONTRACTS:

WPP

BARTON DEAKIN

ExxonMobil

BCW (BURSON COHN & WOLFE)

Shell / Peabody Energy

BCW / DIRECT IMPACT (Subsidiary)

ExxonMobil

CANNINGS PURPLE

Bunbury Energy

GEOMETRY GLOBAL

Shell

HAWKER BRITTON

APA / APPEA / Caltex

HILL + KNOWLTON STRATEGIES

Shell / ExxonMobil / OGCI (Oil & Gas Climate Initiative) / Chevron / ANGA (America's Natural Gas Alliance)

HILL + KNOWLTON STRATEGIES / SJR (Subsidiary)

ExxonMobil

LANDOR

BP (British Petroleum)

MEDIACOM

Shell

MINDSHARE

BP (British Petroleum)

MIRUM

Shell / Fortum

OGILVY

BP (British Petroleum) / BP Australia

OGILVY PR (OPR)

Caltex

SHOLZ & FRIENDS

PGE

SUPERUNION

Equinor

VMLY&R

Chevron

WAVEMAKER

Chevron

WUNDERMAN THOMPSON

Shell

OMNICOM

ADAM&EVE DDB

ExxonMobil

BBDO

ExxonMobil

CHE PROXIMITY

AGL

DDC

Dominion Energy / Exelon / API (American Petroleum Institute) / EEI (Edison Electric Institute) / Americans For Job Security / AGA (American Gas Association) / U.S. Chamber of Commerce / National Association Of Manufacturers / ACCCE (American Coalition Of Clean Coal Energy)

GRA COSWAY

Santos / BHP Billiton / Haliburton Energy

FLEISHMAN HILLARD

Past contracts:

API (American Petroleum Institute) / Natural Gas Industry (Canada) / National Association Of Manufacturers

GSD&M

API (American Petroleum Institute)

KETCHUM

ExxonMobil

MARKETFORCE/MARKETFORCE NORTH

Shell Australia / APPEA

PORTER NOVELLI

ANGA (America's Natural Gas Alliance) / American Public Gas Association

TRIBAL WORLDWIDE

ExxonMobil

DENTSU

iPROSPECT

Ampol

MCGARRY BOWEN

Chevron

INTERPUBLIC

CARMICHAEL LYNCH

Conoco-Phillips

MCCANN WORLDGROUP

ExxonMobil

MCCANN WORLDGROUP ESPANA

Repsol

UM

ExxonMobil, AGL, Statoil

WEBER SHANDWICK

ExxonMobil

HAVAS

HAVAS GLOBAL

ExxonMobil

HAVAS NORTH AMERICA

ExxonMobil

HAVAS PEOPLE

BP

HAVAS SPORTS

Total Energies

PUBLICIS

SAATCHI & SAATCHI

Ampol

CARRE NOIR

TotalEnergies

PUBLICIS CONSEIL

TotalEnergies

INDEPENDENT

ADVOC8

API (American Petroleum Institute) / AGA (American Gas Association) / AEM (Association of Equipment Manufacturers) / National Association of Manufacturers / U.S. Chamber of Commerce

ALEGRO 234

Repsol

ANACTA STRATEGIES

Glencore

BASTION BANJO

Alinta Energy

BIG RED

CMEWA / BHP

BRUNSWICK

BP (British Petroleum)

CROSBY TEXTOR (CT)

APPEA

DCI GROUP

ExxonMobil / ACCCE (American Coalition For Clean Coal Electricity) / National Association of Manufacturers

DEMNER, MERLICEK & BERGMANN

OMV

DEZENHALL RESOURCES

AFPM (American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers) / ExxonMobil

DIGITALWAVE

OMV

EDELMAN

Shell / Chevron / Exxon / PSE (Puget Sound Energy) / API (American Petroleum Institute) / AFPM (American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers) / EEI (Edison Electric Institute) / National Association of Manufacturers / NMA / TransCanada / Task Force On Shale & Gas / Oil and Gas Climate Iniative

EDELMAN / BLUE (Subsidiary)

API (American Petroleum Institute)

FLAVOR TV

Shell

FTI CONSULTING

ExxonMobil / IPAA (Independent Petroleum Association Of America)

FTI CONSULTING / COMPASS LEXECON (Subsidiary)

National Association of Manufacturers

FORSMAN&BODENFORS (Sweden)

Preem

GOVSTRAT

Bravus (Adani Subsidiary) / New Hope Group

GREENROOM FILMS

MOLGroup

HOUSTON GROUP

Ampol

INTARGET

Eni

IRIS WORLDWIDE

Shell

JWS RESEARCH

Minerals Council of Australlia (MCA)

KEMPNER COMMUNICATIONS

Shell

KIVVIT

NRECA

KOJO

Minerals Council of Australlia (MCA)

LEFTLOFT

Eni

LOCUST STREET GROUP

Exxon

M&C SAATCHI

Origin Energy

NEXT LEVEL STRATEGIC SERVICES

Bravus (Adani Subsidiary) / Shell Australia

NEWGATE COMMUNICATIONS

Malabar Coal / Whitehaven Coal

NUNN MEDIA

Minerals Council of Australlia (MCA)

POOLHOUSE

API (American Petroleum Institute) / National Association of Manufacturers

PURPLE STRATEGIES

BP (British Petroleum)

QUIGLEY-SIMPSON

Shell

REPUBLIC PR

Bravus (Adani Subsidiary)

RPA

ARCO

SINGER ASSOCIATES

Chevron / AFPM (American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers)

SOMETHING ELSE STRATEGIES

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

STATECRAFT

Anglo American / Yancoal / Wollongong Coal / Hume Coal / Cockatoo Coal / Shenhua Watermark Coal / South32

STRATEGIC POLITICAL COUNSEL

APA

STRICK AND COMPANY

ExxonMobil / Chevron

T STUDIOS

Exxon / Shell / Chevron

TLA WORLDWIDE

Ampol

VAYNERMEDIA

Shell

VCCP

Shell

THE VISUAL AGENCY

Eni

XY 01

Equinor

WASHINGTON POST CREATIVE GROUP

American Petroleum Institute / BP / Shell

WILLARD PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Caltex

Holding company sustainability policies vs. fossil fuel clients:

Major advertising and PR holding companies have announced sustainability policies aimed at reducing the carbon impact of their offices, travel, and production. Disclosed pledges from across the industry so far amount to reductions of less than 7 megatons of carbon per year - an amount that equals approximately one month of the carbon impact of a single fossil fuel client, Exxon, under their current business plans.

Sustainability pledges by holding companies will fall short in addressing climate change and questions of employee engagement as long as they do not clearly rule out working with the most polluting clients.

WPP: 

On Earth Day 2021, holding company giant WPP pledged to reach net zero across all of its operations, going so far as to account for the energy used to run banner ads across the internet and develop plans to power them with renewable energy, or offset the carbon impact. This extensive, detailed plan will account for reductions of 5.4 mt of carbon annually by 2025 across the entire group of agencies.

WPP maintains a long list of fossil fuel aligned clients, most prominently BP in Ogilvy, Shell at WundermanThompson, and Exxon in both Hill + Knowlton and Burson Cohn and Wolfe. These fossil fuel majors account for 423 times the carbon impact of WPP’s operations. This gap in WPP’s pledge means that generating sales increases of .2% across these clients would immediately wipe out the impact of WPP’s net zero plan. 

Interpublic: 

In June 2021, the holding company Interpublic released a Net Zero plan that included powering their work with 100% renewable energy by 2030, and reaching net zero emissions by 2040. This plan, which includes expanded reporting and disclosure on their operations, would account for reductions of 211 tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually. 

IPG’s operations represent a tiny fraction of emissions compared to their work for major polluting clients. Just one agency, Carmichael Lynch, bragged to the public that their campaign for oil giant Conoco Phillips resulted in 40,000,000 gallons of gasoline sold, representing a carbon impact greater than the entire global holding company. 

 
Interpublic_8.jpg
 

Additionally, their extensive work for Exxon at both Weber-Shandwick and UM Media contributes directly to Exxon’s longstanding - and confessed - strategy to obstruct climate action by governments, and extend their highly-polluting business model past the window of climate safety. 

In comparison with IPG’s goal to use 100% renewable energy by 2030, their client Exxon plans to increase oil production by 52%, and gas production by 27% by 2030.

Dentsu: 

Dentsu has made a public commitment to achieve Net Zero on a timeline which, on its face, matches well to the Paris Climate Agreement goals, and more ambitious timelines for climate action. However, none of its clients in polluting industries have targets to match Dentsu’s ambition, and the company’s failure to account for the impact of their work for those clients undermines the credibility of their pledge. 

On its website, Dentsu lays out five planks to its net zero agenda: Technology, Flights, Research and Advertising, Professional fees, and Buildings and Fleet. None of these five areas would account for, or mitigate, the impact of working for clients such as Chevron (mcgarrybowen), or Ampol (iProspect), both of which are major sources of climate pollution at a scale that outstrips any of Dentsu’s current commitments. 

Publicis: 

Since 2007, holding company Publicis has adopted climate disclosure and planning into its business plans. Their current plans include carbon neutrality in their operations by 2030, and regular reporting on annual emissions. Their climate plan focuses first on reducing travel, and then the most concrete parts of its carbon and waste footprint by reducing raw material consumption and using renewable energy in its offices. 

These commitments stand in sharp contrast to their work with fossil fuel companies such as Ampol and Total. While Publicis will reduce their carbon footprint to zero by 2030, Total plans to expand their oil production and leave their gas production virtually unchanged. The work Publicis agencies do for these companies allows them to extend their polluting business models far beyond where Publicis itself believes it is appropriate to continue contributing to carbon pollution. 

Omnicom:

Holding company Omnicom has taken a fragmented, piecemeal approach to sustainability within its business. Several agencies have joined initiatives like the UK Advertising Association’s Ad Net Zero project, but none which would commit them to addressing the impact of their work for major polluting clients. 

Their current holding-company wide goals include only minor targets such as using 20% renewable energy by 2023. But by comparison, their fossil fuel clients are even lower-performing. In 2020, Ketchum’s major oil industry client ExxonMobil invests less than 1% of their annual capital expenditures into developing renewable or carbon-capture programs.

 

Case studies of misleading campaigns:

 

Australia: Project Cesar

In 2019, the Guardian revealed the existence of an operation created by the firm Crosby Textor to astroturf support for coal projects, and oppose measures to address climate change in Australia. “Project Cesar” received a budget of millions of dollars per year from the coal major Glencore, which was spent on professional graphic and video production for content designed to promote coal as a solution to Australia’s energy problems. 

Crosby Textor, now known as CT Group, is an international political strategy firm known for work with right-leaning politicians who specialize in the use of wedge issues to divide and polarize the public. The strategy for Project Cesar matched this approach: posts from pages like “Energy Australia” made outrageous and false claims, such as claiming that wind turbines would be used to desecrate the graves of veterans, that clean energy mandates would be used to turn off power to businesses, and blaming blackouts on renewable energy. These posts were designed to divide and incite in the CT playbook that had already been deployed in Australian politics, UK elections, and beyond. 

In addition to broadly attacking renewable energy, Project Cesar also targeted opposition to coal and fossil fuel development. The project assembled dossiers on groups such as Greenpeace and 350.org, using budget information, and maps of staff to better target and respond to organizations.These dossiers were used to feed communication strategies that demonized clean energy advocates. 

Prior to reporting by the Guardian, no link between Glencore, CT Group, and the page Energy Australia was ever shared with the public. Upon the disclosure of Project Cesar, it was called a ‘national disgrace’ by prominent politicians, and shut down by Glencore, claiming that it no longer fit with the company’s strategy. 

Australian creatives: Comms Declare is building a movement of ad and PR professionals who declare for the climate by refusing work for polluting companies. See more about their work here:

Screen Shot 2021-09-15 at 12.27.39 PM.png

United States: Exxon Exxchange

Under the Biden Administration, the United States federal government has undertaken a number of climate policies that affect the business of major polluters, such as limiting fossil fuel extraction permits from public lands, re-instituting a ‘social cost of carbon’ for the purposes of environmental permitting, and rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline. In addition, they’ve backed major legislation that could transform the energy system to better address climate change.

In response, energy giant ExxonMobil has aggressively targeted the Biden Administration through its “Exxchange” platform, which uses digital ads on Facebook to encourage Americans to oppose these measures. Throughout 2021, Exxon has regularly been the top spender on climate issues across Facebook, and their total ad spending on the Exxchange likely extends into the millions of dollars. 

Previously, Harris Media, a Texas-based PR firm that often works for far-right politicians in the United States and elsewhere has taken responsibility for managing the Exxchange project.

However, a coding error preserved on archive.org also reveals that PR giant Edelman has played a role in managing the site, and likely other aspects of the campaign as well. A link on the preserved site includes a Microsoft SafeLinks URL containing the email address with an edelman.com domain. This SafeLinks URL could have only been generated by an Edelman employee and appears to have been mistakenly embedded in the site. It demonstrates that Edelman has had direct control over the site and its content, at least up until May of 2021.

Edelman has not previously disclosed their work on this project.

Europe: Blue Hydrogen Greenwash

The EU is banking big on hydrogen to be a critical element of its decarbonization pathway. According to the EC’s July 2020 Hydrogen Strategy, EU investments in renewable (green) hydrogen are expected to range between €180 and €470 billion by 2050, with fossil fuel sourced (blue) hydrogen investments ranging between €3 and €18 billion.

Currently, 95% of hydrogen is sourced from fossil fuels, and scientists recently warned that making blue hydrogen from natural gas while capturing some of the escaping CO2 emissions is actually more polluting than simply burning natural gas directly due in part to the massive electricity required to capture CO2, and resultant methane emissions. The fact that there are only two functioning carbon capture operations around the world is concerning, as well as the lack of a safe CO2 pipeline infrastructure needed to bury it. Despite this failing, Europe's fossil industry declared, “$280 billion in global investment is needed from now until 2030 to fully realize hydrogen’s role in the energy transition, and governments can work as true partners to create an investment environment that shares the risks.”

In December 2020 Corporate Europe Observatory released a report that identified two major industry coalitions steering the hydrogen discussion--Hydrogen Europe and Hydrogen Council. Although there is a constellation of other PR firms and niche consultancies involved at various strategic levels and geographic regions within the EU hydrogen lobby, the report also named FTI Consulting as pulling strings for both coalitions.

Hydrogen Europe, with FTI as its secretariat, launched in late 2015 as a ‘super association.’ It has grown to over 280 members from all sectors across the oil & gas value chain. Its most recent vision paper, the April 2021 Hydrogen Act, declares “Hydrogen will become a crucial energy vector and the other leg of the energy transition – alongside renewable electricity.” Hydrogen Council launched at Davos in January 2017 with 13 steering members, chief among them Air Liquide, Shell, and Total. By October 2020 the Hydrogen Council boasted 92 members collectively representing total revenues of over €18.9 trillion. Today, it has over 120 members. Not only is Hydrogen Council an FTI client--Hydrogen Council’s official address is the same as FTI’s Brussels office.

Screen Shot 2021-09-15 at 4.36.39 PM.png

DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT

 

See the full F-LIST 2021 report below: